08/21/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 08/21/2025 16:33
In Velarde v. Monroe Operations, LLC (June 2025, No. G063626), a California Court of Appeal invalidated an employer's arbitration agreement due to procedural unconscionability-meaning it was not struck down for its terms, but for the manner in which it was presented to the employee.
The employer required that the employee review and sign a five-page arbitration agreement quickly and before she could start work. Further, the arbitration agreement was buried alongside more than 30 other onboarding documents and forms. When the employee stated she was confused about the agreement, the employer's Human Resources Manager told her that the purpose of the agreement was to "help us resolve any issues without having to pay lawyers," which was not accurate since the agreement expressly stated that the parties to the agreement would bear their own attorneys' fees.
Taken together, the inadequate time for the employee to review the agreement and the employer's misrepresentation of the agreement's terms (even if the misrepresentation was not intentional) rendered the agreement procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable.
The takeaways for employers cannot be understated:
Do not hesitate to contact Duggan McHugh for assistance with your arbitration agreement rollout procedures, preparation of objective talking points regarding the agreement, or to review your arbitration agreements for legal compliance.
Duggan McHugh is proud to be a CEA Partner. If you have questions about PAGA, or other employment law issues, please contact us, or visit our website dugganmchugh.com